Schlock on Intelligent Design
I guess some of you already know that Schlock Mercenary is one of my favorite webcomics. It was the most poorly drawn webcomics I read, but still manages to be "a cut above" all the rest (except for maybe PA). By now, was used to be rough and sloppy drawing has turned into a bona-fide style, and once you realize how consistent those slightly-out-of-proportion shapes are they really grow on you. (Note: does not apply to early archives!)
In addition, I've a great deal of respect for Howard Taylor, the author. The current open letter up on the front page (just scroll down under the comic) discusses his take on the whole Intelligent Design (should I even dignify it by capitalizing it?) debate, and it's a good read. Most of the people who I respect who've thrown down on the matter are aetheists--Howard Taylor is on the contrary a fairly spiritual person (Mormon, I believe). To take an excerpt:
"Let me explain it more simply: My faith enables me to live happily. Science and technology enable me to live LONGER. I don't want to see science used to discredit religion, because that will make people live LESS happily, and I don't want to see religion used to discredit science, because that will further delay the delivery of my flying car."
If you're at all interested in seeing one more person drone on about this nonsense, seriously, go read. (I can't find a direct link to the open letters anymore, so that link will only work so long as it's still on the front page, probably a week or so at best.)
posted by Lemming @ 12/21/2005 08:59:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
(For the benefit of those of you who don't know: I'm both a Christian and a scientist. But not a Christian Scientist. :) )
I almost entirely agree with Taylor on this one. The one thing I'd want to argue about is that he sounds like he's saying that it doesn't matter if science and religion disagree with each other on certain topics, because each provides a different benefit, and it's worth throwing your hands up in the air and saying "Oh well, science and religion don't line up here" in exchange for getting the benefits from still having both.
It does matter. But just how the benefits are different, the actual topics covered by science and religion are different, and good science and good religion shouldn't ever overlap in what they say. If a certain branch of science is conflicting with a certain branch of religion, it's an indicator that one (or both) of them is trying to do something it's not meant for. Science is about how things work, how anything that has or will happen, did or will happen, and what choices can be made. Religion is about why things work, why certain things did or will happen instead of others, and why it's better to make certain choices than others.
Personally, I like my new favorite judge's statement about this business. He defended science and separation of church and state far more eloquently than I ever could hope to do...
Perhaps i'm confusing "how" and "why", but I find I strongly disagree with the way you've seperated religion and science, Mike. For example, science says perfectly reasoned things about why you should make certain choices rather than others, in many different settings - economics and utility measures for example cover many situations of this type.
I don't think that my disagreement makes for good argument/explanation here though, as it is likely to be either a difference of semantics or opinion, neither of which (I think) is very interesting (sometimes differences of opinion can be very interesting. I personally dislike arguing ones based on religion though. It's very difficult to change one's opinion in those arguments).
I also second Mason's comment - that judge stated the reasoning behind seperation of church and state better than I ever could, and in doing so clarified what religion and science are, or should be.
Post a Comment
<< Home